You said y'r self...don't know how many "coloums inside the building" w'r taken out....plus would the explosion from the plane not make a smaller
hole when entering the building and get larger as it travelled thru' it (as the movies show) big fire ball on the other side...kind'a like a bullet
(small hole front ...big hole back)
What about the other side of the building pic for that....?

Plus what about my previouse post what about all the TNT and the lines that you would need to hook em' up......the planes would need to avoid the
lines...plus would then not need so much TNT to bring this building down...if the plane and fire and jet fuel had "nothing" to do with
it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? no one want's to answer that one ?

Wires? LOL dude this is the age of Radio Transmitters. Oddly enough, everybody's cell phones and CB's went down before the collapses. Disinfo
artists will tell you that is because the com towers were on top of the WTC complex, but common sense would tell you that not everybody's cb or cell
phone was on the same service. I say its because the signal to detonate the charges was a strong overwhelming signal.

Originally posted by twitchy
Wires? LOL dude this is the age of Radio Transmitters.

I believe he is referring to det [detonation] cord, it's the lightly explosive cord that runs from one explosion point to the next. All points must
be tied together with this det cord in order for all points to explode on cue; many points may have slightly (by millisecond) differences, depending
on how a building needs to be felled.

What would be controlled remotely, by frequency, is the ignition on the primary det cord, the one that sets the chain of explosion [rather, for a
building - implosion] into motion.

Originally posted by twitchy
Wires? LOL dude this is the age of Radio Transmitters. Oddly enough, everybody's cell phones and CB's went down before the collapses. Disinfo
artists will tell you that is because the com towers were on top of the WTC complex, but common sense would tell you that not everybody's cb or cell
phone was on the same service. I say its because the signal to detonate the charges was a strong overwhelming signal.

raydeo? WoT's that?

do you mean like on the cover of that 'coup' c.d., where you see a guy pushing the button on a 'remote control'? and one of the twin towers is
exploding in the exact same spot as the actual one exploded(by plane/missile)? you know, that c.d. that came out in august, 2001?

You said y'r self...don't know how many "coloums inside the building" w'r taken out....plus would the explosion from the plane not make a
smaller hole when entering the building and get larger as it travelled thru' it (as the movies show) big fire ball on the other side...kind'a like a
bullet (small hole front ...big hole back)
What about the other side of the building pic for that....?

The core columns of the North Tower are what are not known, Sven. All known knocked out columns were taken into account here. The perimeter columns of
the North Tower, the perimeter columns of the South Tower, and the core columns of the South Tower are all pretty well accounted for. Those are most
of the columns, whether you like it or not.

Are you intelligent enough to differentiate between those different sets of columns? Or are you so limited in your thinking that you group them all
together into one general group you call "columns"? There is a key difference here you're missing.

At any rate Sven, if you're convinced that we don't know how many were knocked out, why do you keep saying most of them were knocked out? How
would you know, if we can't know, as you claim without evidence? Aren't you contradicting yourself? You can't say "we don't know" and then
proceed to say most of them were knocked out. That makes you a hypocrit.

But it's as I actually said. We know the fate of the majority of those columns. Most of them still stood. There's no debating that; it's
clear in the video and photographic evidence. Your claim has been refuted three times now, Sven. You cannot claim that most of the columns were taken
out. That's called lying.

Plus what about my previouse post what about all the TNT and the lines that you would need to hook em' up......the planes would need to avoid
the lines...plus would then not need so much TNT to bring this building down...if the plane and fire and jet fuel had "nothing" to do with
it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? no one want's to answer that one ?

Simple answer: I don't know.

Do I claim to have all the answers here? No. Does that compromise the other evidence against the official story? No. And there is a lot of
evidence against the official story. The fire points knock the fundamental concept of the NIST report right out of the water. Something very eerily
reminiscent of controlled demo brought the WTC 1 and 2 buildings down, but they were unquestionably unique. They had to have been set up like no other
controlled demolitions in history were. It's hard to say how they must've done it, but as I've said, the similarities are more than simply
uncanny.

Why don't you contradict the evidence against the fires' temperatures? Saying "all fires are hot dur" is not only unscientific, but is
quite frankly ignorant. Nonetheless, it's exactly what you've said in response to this problem. Do you have anything serious to add here? It's my
unrefuted contribution to this thread, knocking out the fundamental concept of the NIST report draft and showing that it is based on pure bunk.

About 13% of the North Tower's perimeter columns (31 to 36 of 240 columns) were destroyed. This is fact.

Look at all available images to confirm the above graphic.

It is unknown how much of the North Tower's core columns were damaged.

About 10% of the South Tower's perimeter columns (23 out of 240) were destroyed. This is fact.

Look at all available images to confirm the above graphic.

Only a minimal number of the South Tower's core columns were damaged. See planes trajectory into the building:

In short, stop saying most of the columns were taken out!! That's pure bs!

Nice graphics. But, can you show me that on top of any good, clear, high resolution photo of the same sides? I can see from a number of photos that
neither one matches the actual holes in the towers -- I'd really like to see evidence to the contrary. Who made these graphics? A conspiracy site?

Where is this 10% (23 columns) listed as a fact? I'm quite curious. Can you list any sources to this information? Thanks!

Originally posted by svenglezz
Plus what about my previouse post what about all the TNT and the lines that you would need to hook em' up......the planes would need to avoid the
lines...plus would then not need so much TNT to bring this building down...if the plane and fire and jet fuel had "nothing" to do with
it?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? no one want's to answer that one ?

Y'r Canadian firend,
Sven

You know this is called the 21st century where you have wireless computers and mobile phones...........oh, how did the Madrid bombing happen......I
think they rang mobile phones attached to the bombs to make 'em go off.

I guess the need for wires is quite pointless.........besides like you said it would take time to plant all those wires and and explosives....

So lets say the "explosives" were built and fully assembled before going in the WTC. Then imagine you replace the security personal so that the ol'
regular guys don't ask questions. Then you have power downs so security doors were left unlocked..........Now remove the bomb sniffing dogs only one
week before 9/11 just enough time to plant all the radio controlled demolition explosives.

And who was the Head of Security for the WTC and whose contract ended on 9/11........................Marvin Bush..........Geeee what a coincidence.

Now all you have to do is warn the "officials" to stay away from New York.

First the coloums....y'r right I don't know "most" of the coloums w'r taken down by the planes and fire....no one knows this.......you nor
I....but from what I have seen I "feel" at least half the coloums w'r either tacken out or effected in some way (as stated in early posts by Howard
etc)...you only need the coloum to be "effected" to lose is purpose to hold the wieght above.

Second the "wires" I know about "wireless"...been working with computer my hole life and try to keep up with the latest and greatest. But every
TNT building bring down (I've seen)....they use wires to get the accuracy to have the explosions work per the millisecond (as per Misfit) ...and
using wireless is not always gon'a guarantee it works....so cable would be the only way to go.

Third...the amount of TNT to take down such a building....would it not be "LOTS" of it....my guess enough t'a fill a truck? Can't we discuss the
amount you would need to bring it down? I think that would be an issue no?

Fouth....omg...can we all stop with the "put downs"...just because my point of views are not with the "theories" thats' what they are...the
non-theories are the MOVIES showing the Plans crash into the building with LOTS of jet fuel...so to prove otherwise you need "real" evidence....and
have not seen it yet....but to knock other people (name calling, lying, double identitie, how can I be Howard? etc. etc.) you all know I'm not the
best with the grammer and I try hard to make sence...without personally insulting other people..if I can do it (with bad language skills) I'm sure
you more literate people can do this in y'r sleep.

How do we know where the material the NIST looked at for their reports actually came from ? Was there a reliable NON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT entity
involved ? Asd I recall, they were hell bent to ship it all to China. Only Larry Silverstein's buidings were demolished. Buildings standing right up
next to the two buildings hit by the planes are still there. "Pull it" means controlled demolition. It is on tape. There is no context, Howard.
There were folks, alive, standing in the holes where the airplanes hit, and the supposed 2000 degree fires were raging ( NOT ), before the buildings
were so gracefully destroyed bu controlled demolition. This is just another form of the Warren Commission and a cover-up. Nuf Sed.

"......."A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced"
investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current
investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of
major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the
locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're
doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted
FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John
Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor. ...................."

Originally posted by svenglezz
First the coloums....y'r right I don't know "most" of the coloums w'r taken down by the planes and fire....no one knows this.......you nor
I....but from what I have seen I "feel" at least half the coloums w'r either tacken out or effected in some way (as stated in early posts by Howard
etc)...you only need the coloum to be "effected" to lose is purpose to hold the wieght above.

So out of 47 core columns that range from 4" thick at the very bottom and 1/4" at the top so at a guess where the planes hit the towers the core
columns were somewhere like 2-3" thick.........How many do you think were completly taken out? Even though there is nothing to say there was ANY
weakening of the core structure..........Obviously apart from the jet fuel which doesn't "burn" hot enough to melt steel and the office fires
certainley wouldn't melt steel 2-3" thick and not forgetting heat displacement.

Second the "wires" I know about "wireless"...been working with computer my hole life and try to keep up with the latest and greatest. But
every TNT building bring down (I've seen)....they use wires to get the accuracy to have the explosions work per the millisecond (as per Misfit)
...and using wireless is not always gon'a guarantee it works....so cable would be the only way to go.

I know its a push to use wireless recievers but if this was carried out by "military means" don't you think they would have to be quick as. The
buildings could already have had the "wires" placed.........As for the plane taking out the wires...........why would it make a difference, the
explosives would only have to go at place the plane crashed then the "pancake theory" takes over.

Third...the amount of TNT to take down such a building....would it not be "LOTS" of it....my guess enough t'a fill a truck? Can't we
discuss the amount you would need to bring it down? I think that would be an issue no?

Well, what was that the Official report said..........oh yeah pancake theory.......so from my point of view (just a guess) all you would have to do is
take out the core columns on the floors that the planes hit then the pancake theory takes its course..........normal fires cannot melt
steel.........

That means you don't need an awful lot of explosive material and you certainly don't need the explosives all the way down the building......although
it "might" have been done........as we have no conclusive proof either way we just have to speculate and guess.........

Just thought it was relevant to your last post (plus can't wait for the commets lol)

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

don't take that exam just yet. i'm sorry i called you howard's sock puppet. even if you are. i don't hold bad spelling and grammar against
people. i don't see it as a sign of intelligence. i do think that you're style of typing is a little over the top, and that's why i find some
disingenuous 'ring' to your posts. i also find it wierd that you mispell words that you should know, like catherder, not cathurder. if you're
language skills are that poor, you should be spelling catherder correctly, because it is written right there, over and over, for you to copy.

i don't really want to go pick apart your spelling to show that you're making mistakes on purpose, to get a little sympathy, and hence avoid the
barrage of insults that are heaped upon protectors of the official lie. but i will, if i feel like it, later on.

Nice graphics. But, can you show me that on top of any good, clear, high resolution photo of the same sides? I can see from a number of photos
that neither one matches the actual holes in the towers -- I'd really like to see evidence to the contrary. Who made these graphics? A conspiracy
site?

Where is this 10% (23 columns) listed as a fact? I'm quite curious. Can you list any sources to this information? Thanks!

LOL!

Those figures and the two diagrams are from FEMA, CatHerder. Specifically, chapter two of their report.

Interpretation of photographic evidence suggests that from 31 to 36 columns on the north building face were destroyed over portions of a
four-story range.

The above quote is from page 2-15 of the FEMA report on the WTC.

The diagram of the damage done to the perimeter columns of WTC 1 can be found on page 2-18.

Photographic evidence suggests that from 27 to 32 columns along the south building face were destroyed over a five-story range.

The above quote is from page 2-31 of the FEMA report on the WTC. This contradicts my original source, which stated 23 columns I think (probably a typo
of 32, because they get the numbers straight on the following page, also hosted by themselves:
911research.wtc7.net... ), but it's still less than WTC 1 and obviously still less than 15% either way.

The diagram of the damage done to the perimeter columns of WTC 2 can be found on page 2-30.

First the coloums....y'r right I don't know "most" of the coloums w'r taken down by the planes and fire....no one knows this.......you nor
I....but from what I have seen I "feel" at least half the coloums w'r either tacken out or effected in some way (as stated in early posts by Howard
etc)...you only need the coloum to be "effected" to lose is purpose to hold the wieght above.

Half the columns were taken out? No. We know almost exactly how many columns were taken out. Less than 15% of the perimeter columns of either
building, and a minority of the total core columns as well. You cannot say "most were taken out." Again, that is a lie. It's like me stating
over and over and over that the two buildings were intentionally hit by trains. It's absolute bs. Were you there on 9/11? Are you sure trains
weren't intentionally smashing into the base? OH YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU WEREN'T THERE! That's the logic you're using!

Half of the columns being "effected in some way"? Hell, Sven, I'm sure all of them were affected in some way. Unfortunately that doesn't
mean anything. The fact is that the great majority of columns were still holding their weight, and then some, with no problem. They were designed to
do this. It's called over-engineering. You're supposed to be an engineer, so you've heard of that, right?

Fouth....omg...can we all stop with the "put downs"...just because my point of views are not with the "theories" thats' what they are...the
non-theories are the MOVIES showing the Plans crash into the building with LOTS of jet fuel...so to prove otherwise you need "real" evidence....and
have not seen it yet....but to knock other people (name calling, lying, double identitie, how can I be Howard? etc. etc.) you all know I'm not the
best with the grammer and I try hard to make sence...without personally insulting other people..if I can do it (with bad language skills) I'm sure
you more literate people can do this in y'r sleep.

It's not because of your views or the way you type. It's because you aren't offering any serious evidence. You're offering
opinions.

Here are a select few of your attempted rebuttals of a list of 9/11 anomalies:

1. Bush's reaction (what's that got 2 do with it)
...
5. Fire not hot enough (what fire is not hot..plus Planes remember)
...
8. Beltway witnesses hearing"whoosh"(uhm..."whoosh" prob.my Moms sister)
...
10. Small fires in WTC 7 (duh...fires all over plus...lot of M&E stuff)
11. "Missle" slips by Rumsfield (ok that's not the WTC they def. shot it)
12. Bush security work towers (Oh y'a Bush was there..more reason to hit it)
13. Power outages week prior (Uhm....got to Mexico..power out...daily)
14. GPS tracking of metal (GPS tracking...omg...never hear that before)
15. Quick disposal of evidence, er metal (You know Chinese they want in a hurry...they don' mess around....lol...what they gon'a do with it...re
build it..image laying it all out making a study....to fing out...yup they fell due to the planes)
16. Whitewash of 9/11 probe (duh again...why would y'a)
17. Refusal to release all video evidence (why would they...plus would prob. help d'a terrorist...why give em everything)
18. NORAD stand down (They did not have time to stop it)
...
20. Hijackers found alive in Egypt (found a couple...good CIA work NOT)
21. Unburned passports (you can always get copies)
...
23. Bad pilots - skilled execution (who say they bad....plus BF2 I can fly a fighter get
24. Instant Messages warning of attacks (what was the exact "text")
...
27. Firefighter report only a few fires (uhmm...look at the video agian)
28. Second tower hit falls first (funny how things work some times)

That is the kind of total bs that people are ridiculing you for, Sven. Your responses aren't even serious half of the time. Elementary school
students could offer better rebuttals to those statements. None of them hold up. Seriously man, you can't say stuff like that and then say people
ridicule you simply because you believe the official report. It's because you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by svenglezz
Third...the amount of TNT to take down such a building....would it not be "LOTS" of it....my guess enough t'a fill a truck? Can't we discuss the
amount you would need to bring it down? I think that would be an issue no?

Nice graphics. But, can you show me that on top of any good, clear, high resolution photo of the same sides? I can see from a number of photos
that neither one matches the actual holes in the towers -- I'd really like to see evidence to the contrary. Who made these graphics? A conspiracy
site?

Where is this 10% (23 columns) listed as a fact? I'm quite curious. Can you list any sources to this information? Thanks!

LOL!

Those figures and the two diagrams are from FEMA, CatHerder. Specifically, chapter two of their report.

I found it humorous because you were insinuating that I got them off of a "conspiracy site", and that they were total bullcrap.

In fact, your words were

I can see from a number of photos that neither one matches the actual holes in the towers -- I'd really like to see evidence to the contrary.
Who made these graphics? A conspiracy site?

I guess you have a problem with FEMA now, too. You are fair to both sides after all, right? So since you didn't agree with the figures before, I'm
assuming you still don't agree with them? If you're truly fair to both sides, then it shouldn't matter what side they came from, after all.

If you look through FEMA's report, they give some graphics that show how they came up with the diagrams. That part at least seems pretty accurate to
me. But since you saw, "from a number of photos that neither one matches the actual holes," I suppose you're going to rebutt FEMA's diagrams for
us, and tell us the actual number of knocked-out columns.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.